Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We'll build a great wall at the border to keep desperate Scots out of England. Once they haven't got English money holding the whole thing up, there would be a mess up there. Plus their economy isn't viable, and they would have to follow EU spend and tax rules.
They would soon run wee Nicola Crankie out of town......... You can't live on singing Scotland the Brave. The wall would also be necessary to stop EU members flying to Scotland, and then making their way into England.
Whew, one thing this thread shows is how much the United Kingdom is united only if the rest are kissing English rump.
Whew, one thing this thread shows is how much the United Kingdom is united only if the rest are kissing English rump.
Things have changed not at all.
You've got to be joking! Try being an English person living in Scotland, like my son did for 14 years. Insults came his way regularly. Try watching a football game involving England in a Scottish pub. The Scots will support any team rather than England.
England holds the whole UK up financially. We dish out money to the northern Irish, the Welsh, and the Scots. We get no kissing of the English rump for all the money we hand over. Just constant whining.
Whew, one thing this thread shows is how much the United Kingdom is united only if the rest are kissing English rump.
Things have changed not at all.
You have to be joking!! Its about time the world realised that the 'English bad everybody else good' label is nothing more than a god awful stereotype! Maybe if Hollywood stopped using Englishmen with god awful accents as every single bad guy? Or perhaps if Braveheart was re-made with an ounce of historical accuracy? Its the Scots that get free higher education, the English have to pay, its the Scots that get free prescriptions, the English have to pay, its the Scots that have their own devolved parliament, they get a say on how England is run in Westminster, the English don't get a say on how Scotland is run in Edinburgh. It was William Wallace that invaded England murdering and raping all in his path (he got as far as Derby I believe before he was stopped) and if I am not mistaken Britain itself was formed when a Scottish king took on the throne of England, if anything there is an argument there that its the English that are 'oppressed' by the Scots! One can only imagine what would be said if it was the English getting free higher education while the Scots had to pay!! There would be UPROAR - but don't let any of that get in the way of 'the truth', you know the bit about the English being the oppressors of the world!
You have to be joking!! Its about time the world realised that the 'English bad everybody else good' label is nothing more than a god awful stereotype! Maybe if Hollywood stopped using Englishmen with god awful accents as every single bad guy? Or perhaps if Braveheart was re-made with an ounce of historical accuracy? Its the Scots that get free higher education, the English have to pay, its the Scots that get free prescriptions, the English have to pay, its the Scots that have their own devolved parliament, they get a say on how England is run in Westminster, the English don't get a say on how Scotland is run in Edinburgh. It was William Wallace that invaded England murdering and raping all in his path (he got as far as Derby I believe before he was stopped) and if I am not mistaken Britain itself was formed when a Scottish king took on the throne of England, if anything there is an argument there that its the English that are 'oppressed' by the Scots! One can only imagine what would be said if it was the English getting free higher education while the Scots had to pay!! There would be UPROAR - but don't let any of that get in the way of 'the truth', you know the bit about the English being the oppressors of the world!
So you don't know the difference between Devolved and Reserved or E.V.E.L
English votes for English Laws, we take SFA to do with it.
The Scottish Parliament decides what do in Devolved matters and the UK Parliament in Reserved matters which include the rest of the UK
As for Braveheart it is a work of FICTION based on historical figures, a bit like the Battle of Britain where England won the war.
Read the Alien Act 1705, it was blackmail no ifs no buts.
The first concrete move towards union came when Queen Anne took the thrones of Scotland and England in 1702. The previous year, the English parliament had passed an Act of Settlement passing the crown to the German house of Hanover on the childless Anne's death.
As for English bad, everbody else good is a bit like, all foreigners come here to steal jobs or live on benefits. It's not true, 99% of the time
More like they fizzled out as there was only rag-tag bunch left.
Yep. The Scots came to rule England.
Wiliam Wallace died in 1305,
The first concrete move towards union came when Queen Anne took the thrones of Scotland and England in 1702. The previous year, the English parliament had passed an Act of Settlement passing the crown to the German house of Hanover on the childless Anne's death.
The UK government have been caught amending Brexit documents,
According to Sky news, the notices – known as “technical papers” – were quietly amended following the Cabinet decision to ramp up preparations for a no-deal Brexit.
One paper related to medicines, for example, previously read: "In the unlikely event of no deal, the UK would no longer be part of the European Medicines Agency."
That now says: "In the event of no deal, the UK would no longer be part of the European Medicines Agency."
Elsewhere, a document in relation to passport use between the UK and EU has seen the reference to negotiations going well and the Government "working hard to seek a positive deal" removed.
A new addition to this document mentions that a "significant programme of work" has been launched to prepare for a no deal divorce.
England holds the whole UK up financially. We dish out money to the northern Irish, the Welsh, and the Scots. We get no kissing of the English rump for all the money we hand over. Just constant whining.
More like the South East England. HMG spending infrastructure is twice than the rest on the country on average, especially on transport. Hence why private enterprise flourishes in the South East. London has five airports, six if you include Southend.
The south whines that the north of England get direct government jobs claiming they are paid for out of their taxes.
The south east gets taxes spent on them, but indirectly in infrastructure (mainly transport like rail) to the point it is twice of everywhere else. Economist Fred Harrison goes into it.
The advantage of the infrastructure spending is that it is permanent and creates economic growth. A region with top quality infrastructure is less likely to be directly affected by sweeping government cuts.This convinces the southerners they are propping up the rest of the UK, when they are not.
In the North East they have cried out for an extra lane on the A1M that runs through the region, as this would create economic growth. They are still waiting. The same with Liverpool in expanding Merseyrail and getting a station to the airport. Birmingham is the largest city in Europe without a rapid-transit rail network, while London has the largest in the world.
The volume and quality of the transport infrastructure in the south east ensures all will gravitate towards them - paid for mainly by taxpayers of all the UK.
Another point that makes the south easterners wealthy is the exceptional value of the land. The value was created by public spending in infrastructure. The economic growth created soaked into the land as land values. This value is tapped into by the landowners, small and large in the region, making them far more wealthy than the rest of the UK.
The south east (excluding London) is the world's 20th largest economy. Propped up by taxes from all over the UK.
Economist Fred Harrison highlights the bias towards London to the point that it is a black hole for investment at the expense of the rest of the country.
"we see that public expenditure on a per capita basis is more than twice invested in London than other regions in the transport and housing sectors."
"thanks to the tax system - that there is an automatic bias in directing investment towards London."
Transport infrastructure projects are assessed on a DfT "good value for money" calculation.
Value for money category - Benefit to Cost Ratio - Prospects For the Projects
Poor - less than 1 - None
Low - Between 1 and 1.5 - None
Medium - Between 1.5 and 2 - Some but by no means at all
High - Over 2 - Most if not all
Even a 1 to 1.5 would be considered for London.
Harrison:
"[London] in the growth years, makes a net contribution to the public coffers between 2 billion and £9 billion. This is disingenuous. The calculation ignores the capital gains that flow from public spending. Public money invested in London yields huge gains in the private sector - in the appreciation in capital assets - that far exceed the financial subsidies that are transferred to the regions."
Harrison:
The reason capital is not so readily invested in the North is that the privileged aggregation of rents at the centre [London] creates benefits such as the public subsidies to transport, and the opportunity to claw back one's tax payments as capital gains. This set of incentives encourages the financial institutions to concentrate close to each other in these areas. The cumulative effect is bias towards the centre [London].
The infrastructure of Docklands was paid from central taxes - about 1/3. They built a whole advanced elevated metro for it, while Liverpools' docks, which closed down the same year as London's, rotted.
Harrison:
"In addition to private money, the people of the south east also relied on the expenditure of public money"
"The unequal distribution of opportunities is primarily to do with the bias in taxation and public spending. Not the defects in transport systems or the superior talents of the people of the south east."
"The subsequent lopsided evolution of the economy was due to a flaw in the business model that was employed to fund the investment of capital in infrastructure."
Harrison:
"One illustration of the favourable tax treatment directed at Docklands, which was deemed necessary to expand the commercial space available for insurance and banking corporations. £3.4 billion was invested in the Jubilee Line extension to Canary Warf, while other centres of high population (such as Liverpool) were denied a few hundred million pounds for the metros they needed."
Harrison:
The Thatcher government decided in 1980 that London's Docklands should be redeveloped. Its primary tool stood justice on its head. Instead of imposing public charge on vacant land - to force it into new uses [this also stops land speculating and financial crashes] - the government created an enterprise zone. One of the privileges was exemption from property taxation.
The result was predictable. Tax relief was capitalised into higher land values, and families which for generations had made Docklands their homes were pressurised out of the area. Those who did not own land were the losers. The windfall gains did enrich some people. Arnold Fulton purchased a plot of land in a derelict corner of Docklands for £650,000. Developers pursued him fending off their offers until he took £30 million.
All rail and road projects were from central government. Wembley only a little. The update of the station had subsidies. The Olympics got a lot. The M1 from the M25 to Milton Keynes, where the hockey is being played, is having an extra lane. The cost of the extra lane would open Liverpool's Outer Loop line and even more.
Harrison:
A higher proportion of public spending in the regions is committed to welfare benefits to people who are rendered unemployable by payroll taxes. Those state subsidies are necessary to keep people alive. Unlike investment in (say) a new metro system, they do not produce windfall gains in the land market.
In London, however, a higher proportion of public money devoted to improving the quality of transport and schools. This raises the productive capacity of the population working in the capital. The spin-off takes the form of capital gains to land owners. And that means Londoners are more able to to claw back the taxes they paid to the exchequer, leaving them with higher disposable incomes to be spent in the retail sectors - which, through the multipier effect, gives a further boost to the London economy.
"The productivity gap is increasing rather than narrowing. It accelerated further during the height of the Dot.com boom. This is not primarily due to the natural trends within the economy, but the conjunction of costs and benefits prescribed by government through taxation."
"If the London property market is overheating, the chancellor may put up the national interest rate, yet property is not overheating in the north east and they suffer because of the raised interest rate."
"The boost to London's infrastructure out of the public purse overspills to higher land values, which translates to easier financing arrangements for entrepreneurs who secure an advantage to their competitors in the regions."
England holds the whole UK up financially. We dish out money to the northern Irish, the Welsh, and the Scots. We get no kissing of the English rump for all the money we hand over. Just constant whining.
More like the South East England. HMG spending infrastructure is twice than the rest on the country on average, especially on transport. Hence why private enterprise flourishes in the South East. London has five airports, six if you include Southend.
The south whines that the north of England get direct government jobs claiming they are paid for out of their taxes.
The south east gets taxes spent on them, but indirectly in infrastructure (mainly transport like rail) to the point it is twice of everywhere else. Economist Fred Harrison goes into it.
The advantage of the infrastructure spending is that it is permanent and creates economic growth. A region with top quality infrastructure is less likely to be directly affected by sweeping government cuts. This convinces the southerners they are propping up the rest of the UK, when they are not.
In the North East they have cried out for an extra lane on the A1M that runs through the region, as this would create economic growth. They are still waiting. The same with Liverpool in expanding Merseyrail and getting a station to the airport. Birmingham is the largest city in Europe without a rapid-transit rail network, while London has the largest in the world.
The volume and quality of the transport infrastructure in the south east ensures all will gravitate towards them - paid for mainly by taxpayers of all the UK.
Another point that makes the south easterners wealthy is the exceptional value of the land. The value was created by public spending in infrastructure. The economic growth created soaked into the land as land values. This value is tapped into by the landowners, small and large in the region, making them far more wealthy than the rest of the UK.
The south east (excluding London) is the world's 20th largest economy. Propped up by taxes from all over the UK.
Economist Fred Harrison highlights the bias towards London to the point that it is a black hole for investment at the expense of the rest of the country.
"we see that public expenditure on a per capita basis is more than twice invested in London than other regions in the transport and housing sectors."
"thanks to the tax system - that there is an automatic bias in directing investment towards London."
Transport infrastructure projects are assessed on a DfT "good value for money" calculation.
Value for money category - Benefit to Cost Ratio - Prospects For the Projects
Poor - less than 1 - None
Low - Between 1 and 1.5 - None
Medium - Between 1.5 and 2 - Some but by no means at all
High - Over 2 - Most if not all
Even a 1 to 1.5 would be considered for London.
Harrison:
"[London] in the growth years, makes a net contribution to the public coffers between 2 billion and £9 billion. This is disingenuous. The calculation ignores the capital gains that flow from public spending. Public money invested in London yields huge gains in the private sector - in the appreciation in capital assets - that far exceed the financial subsidies that are transferred to the regions."
Harrison:
The reason capital is not so readily invested in the North is that the privileged aggregation of rents at the centre [London] creates benefits such as the public subsidies to transport, and the opportunity to claw back one's tax payments as capital gains. This set of incentives encourages the financial institutions to concentrate close to each other in these areas. The cumulative effect is bias towards the centre [London].
The infrastructure of Docklands was paid from central taxes - about 1/3. They built a whole advanced elevated metro for it, while Liverpools' docks, which closed down the same year as London's, rotted.
Harrison:
"In addition to private money, the people of the south east also relied on the expendature of public money"
"The unequal distribution of opportunities is primarily to do with the bias in taxation and public spending. Not the defects in transport systems or the superior talents of the people of the south east."
"The subsequent lopsided evolution of the economy was due to a flaw in the buisness model that was employed to fund the investment of capital in infrastructure."
Harrison:
"One illustration of the favourable tax tratment directed at Docklands, which was deemed necessary to expand the commercial space available for insurance and banking corporations. £3.4 billion was invested in the Jubilee Line extension to Canary Warf, while other centres of high population (such as Liverpool) were denied a few hundred million pounds for the metros they needed."
Harrison:
The Thatcher government decided in 1980 that London's Docklands should be redeveloped. Its primary tool stood justice on its head. Instead of imposing public charge on vacant land - to force it into new uses [this also stops land speculating and financial crashes] - the government created an enterprise zone. One of the privileges was exemption from property taxation.
The result was predictable. Tax relief was capitalised into higher land values, and families which for generations had made Docklands their homes were pressurised out of the area. Those who did not own land were the losers. The windfall gains did enrich some people. Arnold Fulton purchased a plot of land in a derelict corner of Docklands for £650,000. Developers pursued him fending off their offers until he took £30 million.
All rail and road projects were from central government. Wembley only a little. The update of the station had subsidies. The Olympics gets a lot. The M1 from the M25 to Milton Keynes, where the hockey is being played, is having an extra lane. The cost of the extra lane would open Liverpool's Outer Loop line and even more.
Harrison:
A higher proportion of public spending in the regions is committed to welfare benefits to people who are rendered unemployable by payrole taxes. Those state subsidies are necessary to keep people alive. Unlike investment in (say) a new metro system, they do not produce windfall gains in the land market.
In London, however, a higher proportion of public money devoted to improving the quality of transport and schools. This raises the productive capacity of the population working in the capital. The spin-off takes the form of capital gains to land owners. And that means Londoners are more able to to claw back the taxes they paid to the exchequer, leaving them with higher disposable incomes to be spent in the retail sectors - which, through the multipier effect, gives a further boost to the London economy.
"The productivity gap is increasing rather than narrowing. It accelerated further during the height of the Dot.com boom. This is not primarily due to the natural trends within the economy, but the conjunction of costs and benefits prescribed by government through taxation."
"If the London property market is overheating, the chancellor may put up the national interest rate, yet property is not overheating in the north east and they suffer because of the raised interest rate."
"The boost to London's infrastructure out of the public purse overspills to higher land values, which translates to easier financing arrangements for entrepreneurs who secure an advantage to their competitors in the regions."
Whew, one thing this thread shows is how much the United Kingdom is united only if the rest are kissing English rump.
Things have changed not at all.
Nah.
The Welsh and people from Northern Ireland are smart.They know without England they'd be third world countries.
The Scots have always been the dimmer country in the Union,unaware quite how much subsidy comes their way and how profligate the SNP are with it.
It's not by accident that the most difficult question in any Scottish pub quiz is always " How do you spell YMCA ? "
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
